Mise En Page 1 22/11/2018 14:28 Page55
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
cArgo8_Projet3Nongras.qxp_Mise en page 1 22/11/2018 14:28 Page55 Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale c rgo Liang Yongjia is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore. He is interested in religious and ethnic revival in China and Asia, and ethnographic theory. Keywords: anthropology of religion — religious revival — religious alternative studies — Chinese academics — ecology and market The Anthropological Study of Religion in China: Contexts, Collaborations, Debates, and Trends Liang Yongjia, National University of Singapore nthropology was revived at the very beginning of China’s Reform and Open ADoor (gaige kaifang 改革开放) policy. So was religion (Liang Yongjia, 2015). Both institutional, officially recognised religions and non-institutional, folk religions have steadily developed over the last three decades. How, then, does the anthropological study of religion make sense of the religious landscape in post- Mao China? What are the major concerns and findings, and how (are we) to understand them? The paper tries to provide a general answer to these questions. While there is inspiring literature on Chinese anthropology as a discipline (Guldin, 1994; Wang Jianmin, Zhang Haiyang & Hu Hongbao, 1998: 312-382; Harrell, 2001; Wang Mingming, 2005a, 2005b; Hu Hongbao, 2006: 179-226; Pieke, 2014), little is said about how Chinese anthropologists study the new Chinese religious landscape with its particular discipline. When mentioned, the anthropology of religion is taken as a part of the overall construction of anthropology as a discipline, rather than as a field reacting to the changes in Chinese society and academia. I would therefore like to highlight this reaction, because only through connecting to the historical specificity and current context can we understand why the new anthropology in China studies the religious landscape in such a particular manner that it makes the field appear to be “fragmented” and “unsystematic.” Two articles on the Chinese anthropology of religion have brought significant contributions. Chen Jinguo’s (2009) review of the study of Chinese folk religion finds a demarcation between folkloristic and anthropological studies. However, the distinction seems to go little beyond academic resources, while the affinity of the two is apparent. Comparing anthropological studies of religion in mainland China and Taiwan, Zhang Xun (2017) proposes that mainland China favours “the study of institutional religions.” But Chen’s encyclopedic review of the study of “popular belief” challenges Zhang Xun’s conclusion, which is perhaps valid only 55 cArgo8_Projet3Nongras.qxp_Mise en page 1 22/11/2018 14:28 Page56 when contrasting the studies across the Taiwan strait. Both authors however may not pay sufficient attention to the fact that many studies address religion metaphorically, without using the word “religion.” Therefore, a review of Chinese anthropology of religion needs to go beyond the keywords of “religion,” “anthropology,” and “the anthropology of religion,” a field far from being well- defined. It should take into consideration the Chinese social and academic setting, especially the deep impact from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Euro-American academia. The paper reviews the anthropological study of religion in the last three decades against the social, political, and academic contexts. I argue that this field is a fuzzy one. In response to the religious revival initiated in the 1980s, the anthropological studies are rather fragmentary and diffuse. One of the reasons is the fact that many scholars consciously or unconsciously adopt terms other than “religion” as subjects of study, such as “culture,” “folklore,” “symbol,” and “heritage.” Intensively involved in cross-border academic collaborations, anthropological studies of religion also cross-fertilise with history, folklore, religious studies, and ethnology. However, quality empirical studies are insufficient. New trends include a focus on institutional religions and the creation of the journal Anthropology of Religion. Like other papers in this issue, this one use “the anthropology of religion in China” to refer to the studies conducted by scholars who have been working in mainland China since 1980. I firstly put anthropology of religion in the contexts of religious revival and regulations, discussing its relation to religious studies and folkloristic studies. I then explore the ways in which why religion is studied under alternative labels. Thirdly, I review the external academic impact and cross-disciplinary studies that both profoundly changed the field. Fourthly, I offer a critical review of the two theories explaining the religious landscape of China-religious ecology and religious market. Finally, I highlight some new trends that have appeared in recent years. I do not intend to provide an exhaustive review of the subject. Rather, I will highlight some works that are characteristic of the field. Due to word limitation, I will review mostly monographs rather than papers. Religious revival, regulation, and academic transformation “Anthropology” (renleixue 人类学) was imported (Pan Jiao, 2008), and so was “religion” (zongjiao 宗教) (Chen His-yüan, 2002). Indeed, they are not Chinese concepts, but were introduced by Chinese elites from imperial powers (usually from Japan) as universals deployed to re-interpret Chinese society in order to re- organise it, thereby creating new sets of relations and institutions. As time went by, the concepts may have been indigenised, but they never were entirely able to describe the Chinese society. In other words, by creating things anthropological or religious, both “anthropology” and “religion” have to face indescribable residues. Like “wearing a poorly tailored outfit” – to borrow Ge Zhaoguang’s phrase (2001: 49) – “religion” and “anthropology” were introduced to describe China, not without support from political power. We are therefore unable to clarify what “religion,” “anthropology,” or “anthropology of religion” are, as they have been and will keep The Anthropological Study of Religion in China: Contexts, Collaborations, Debates, and Trends on continually changing. 56 cArgo8_Projet3Nongras.qxp_Mise en page 1 22/11/2018 14:28 Page57 Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale c rgo The conviction that religion is illusionary and unscientific is an elitist unanimous opinion in post-imperial China, rather than a view of the lay practitioners. “Religion” and “superstition” (mixin 迷信) were introduced from late 19th century Japan to be scapegoated as responsible for the weakness of China. Therefore, from the outset, “religion” is a pejorative word subjected to Enlighteners’ condemnation (see, for example, Nedostup, 2013). Intellectual and political elites of post-imperial China have been consistent in their attitude toward religion, as demonstrated in the 1898 campaign to “Build Schools from Temple Property” (miaochan xingxue 庙产兴学), “the Republican church engineering” intended to create a secularist state (Goossaert, 2008), the Nanjing government’s campaign against superstition, and the “Three-self Patriotic Movement” (Sanzi aiguo yundong 三自爱国运动) in the heydays of the PRC. One of the consequences of the persistent elitist perspective is the exclusion of a great variety of non-institutional practices from “religion,” practices such as worshiping gods, making offerings to ancestors, invoking Shamans, seeking for oracles, consulting horoscopes, practising geomancy, and performing mask-dances. Many “pseudo-religious” or “quasi-religious” activities – qigong, spiritual-cultivation, yoga, Tantric, life-nurturing techniques, etc. – are not considered as “religion” defined by the state. Moreover, while the state defines only five religions – Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, Catholicism, and Islam – it has to live with the so-called “superstition.” To the state, the purpose for narrowly defining “religion” is not just to exclude the non-institutional practices, but to separate itself from “religion” with relative ease. When opening China for foreign investment in the early 1980s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) realigned its religious policy from eradication to tolerance- cum-vigilance. The 1982 Constitution guaranteed religious freedom on the condition that religious engagement should not “disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the State,” and that it be free from “foreign domination.” The most comprehensive regulation so far – RegulationS on ReligiouS AffaiRS (Zongjiao Shiwu tiaoli 宗教事务管理条例) effective in 2005 and amended in 2017 – sought for accountable rules by laying out standard procedures in a variety of activities. When China declares that religion should “adapt to socialist society,” it spells out a double-faced policy that sees religion as vulnerable to a possible source of separatism, extremism, superstition, disobedience, and foreign infiltration and dominance, while hoping to make use of its positive values that may contribute to better governance and international image. © Ji Zhe (2010) Fig. 1 - Incense burning in a Buddhist temple, Suzhou 57 cArgo8_Projet3Nongras.qxp_Mise en page 1 22/11/2018 14:28 Page58 Despite the strong regulatory measures, religious practices in post-Mao China remain vibrant. The religious population steadily increases as religious infrastructure expands under governmental or non-governmental sponsorship. Restoration of sacred sites appeals to larger populations for community